Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.microsoft.windows > #2634 > unrolled thread

Using Windows to make Android smoother

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.microsoft.windows

Contents

  Using Windows to make Android smoother Andrews <andrews@spam.net> - 2024-10-23 21:54 +0000
    Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-10-24 03:20 -0400
      Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-10-24 16:12 +0200
        Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2024-10-24 13:20 -0400
          Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Harry S Robins <stanleyrobins@nothere.uk> - 2024-10-24 13:00 -0500
            Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2024-10-24 14:12 -0400
            Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-10-26 12:10 +0200
              Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-10-26 15:56 +0200
              Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-10-26 14:09 -0400
                Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-10-28 16:53 +0100
                  Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-11-01 09:19 +0100
          Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-10-24 14:33 -0400
            Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2024-10-24 21:13 -0400
              Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-10-25 01:35 -0400
                Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-10-25 10:15 +0000
                Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-10-25 15:11 +0200
                  Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-10-25 11:02 -0400
                    Olde Disk Drives (was: Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2024-10-25 17:35 +0100
      Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Andrews <andrews@spam.net> - 2024-10-24 17:15 +0000
        Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-10-24 14:42 -0400
    Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Andrews <andrews@spam.net> - 2024-10-24 17:35 +0000
      Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2024-10-24 14:35 -0400
    Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Andrews <andrews@spam.net> - 2024-10-25 18:41 +0000
    Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Andrews <andrews@spam.net> - 2024-11-01 06:26 +0000
      Re: Using Windows to make Android smoother Andrews <andrews@spam.net> - 2024-11-01 13:56 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#2639

...winston wrote on Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:56:55 -0400 :

>> I need a bigger sd card - I spent years for this moment by using Windows to
>> make Android sdcard swaps smoother and drama reduced experiences for all.
>> 
>> Some questions...
>> Does a Windows "Quick Format" work as well as the slow format?
>> Does the format type matter when the sd card is to be used in a phone?
> 
> Quick format doesn't check for bad sectors, full format does(takes 
> longer, mostly due the scanning for bad sectors). Full format(iirc) 
> removes prior stored files.
>    -your choice. If you concerned about the card(probably sourced and 
> made west of the Pacific Ocean, usually China, South Korea, Phillipines 
> etc.) having bad sectors, choose full. If not, choose Quick.

Thanks for that advice, where I formatted the 128GB Lexar sd card on
Windows, which took a long time (maybe 45 minutes or so?) but it seems from
what you wrote that it might not be a bad idea depending on the provenance.

Luckily, the Windows format of the Android sdcard is only done once.

It's formatted on Windows mostly to set the volume label so that the phone
still thinks the old 64GB sdcard is in the phone, when it's a 128GB sdcard.

>> I just bought from Amazon a 128GB three-pack with reader at about $10 each.
>> And, while a quick format on Windows takes a couple of seconds, a slow
>> format takes quite a bit longer - it's still running on my old desktop >
>> Did I need that slow format?
>> Is the default of XFat (128kbyte allocation unit) an OK setting for phones?
> 
> Your phone supports both exFAT and FAT32.
>   exFAT is usually more efficient in storage and file transfer for large 
> capacity cards
>   eXFAT is almost always recommended for cards greater than 32GB
> 
> For a 128GB SDXC card(phone or pc[laptop, tablet) I would never consider 
> formatting as FAT32 if also used on a phone.

Thanks. I took the default of exFAT for the 128GB sdcard format.
I'll remember that for the future Windows formats of Android sdcards.

> As a test on Win10 Pro(1 TB SSD main drive) - I took a spare 3 yr old 
> 128 GB Samsung EVO Plus Class 10 U3 SDXC card and formatted full  - took 
> 39 minutes for a full format.  I also full formatted a 5 yr old a 64 GB 
> SanDisk Class 10 U1(previously only used a digital camera, no longer 
> used, pretty much a dust collector in spare part box) - took 32 minutes 
> for the full format.

I didn't measure the time but mine were similar in that my 128GB sdcard
took something like 45 minutes (I didn't measure though) to complete.

Just copying the top-level folder over to the new sdcard took similar time.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/xTHbYfZ5/populate-sd.jpg>

So the price of portable storage (meaning you can move the sdcard from one
phone to another or you can swap out sdcards and everything still works),
is about two hours of waiting for things to finish up doing their thing.

Of course those two hours on Windows saves some number of hours on Android
if you have your app data on Android store things (such as maps) on the sd.

The phone still "thinks" it's the same card because the volume label didn't
change (does a volume label need to be 4 characters, a dash, & four more?).

>   - Not sure if it compares to whatever you bought(a quick look on 
> Amazon didn't show any Samsung[my preferred SDXC card] 3 packs) which 
> seems to mean the Samsung test may/may not not apply to full formatting 
> a different brand of an SDXC card, but the 64 GB at approx. a half hour 
> might indicate up to an hour for a full format on a 128 GB card(twice as 
> many sectors to scan)

Here's what I bought on Amazon <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CB11S919>.
I didn't know what to look for, so I simply went by the $28 price.
That's about $10 per 128GB of portable storage since it was 3 cards.

In case the links change over time, here's what the description says.

Lexar E-Series 128GB Micro SD Card 3 Pack, microSDXC UHS-I Flash Memory
Card with Adapter, 100MB/s, C10, U3, A1, V30, Full HD, 4K UHD, High Speed
TF Card 

 Wide Compatibility: 
 Ideal for your smartphones, tablets, Drones, action cameras and Gopro. 
 Premium memory solution for smartphones, tablets, or action cameras.

 4K Ultra UHD: 
 Quickly captures, plays back, and transfers media files, 
 including 1080p Full-HD, 3D, and 4K UHD video.
    
 High Speed Memory Card: 
 Leverages UHS-I technology for a transfer speed up to 100MB/s.
 Loads apps faster with A1-rated performance. (Based on internal 
 test environment of Lexar, so the actual speed may vary with
 different host devices and environments. For devices that don't 
 support UHS-I, the transmission speed will be different due to
 interface limitations.)

 Multi Capacity: 
 Available in capacities ranging from 32GB to 512GB.
 The 128GB micro sd card can support up to 6 hours 4K video, 
 or up to 20 hours 1080P video, 37,600 photos, or 19,440 songs.
 (Due to different capacity algorithms and partial capacity are 
 used for system files, management and performance optimization,
 so the actual available capacity may be less than the 
 identifying capacity.)

 Ultra Durable: Waterproof, temperature-proof, shockproof, magnetic-proof.

Would you have purchased those three cards (for about $10 each) if you knew
that the major use would be to go into a smartphone such as the A32-5G?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2643

Andrews wrote:
> 
> Would you have purchased those three cards (for about $10 each) if you knew
> that the major use would be to go into a smartphone such as the A32-5G?

:)
That's an easy answer for me.
The only SDXC cards that I've had that failed were Lexar, SansDisk, and 
Verbatim(and some time ago)...since then I've used Samsung cards in 
pcs(laptops, tablets in SDXC slot), cameras, and in desktop(with a 
Sabrent USB/SDXC card adapter)

Note: for the latter(desktop with adapter) I've had two USB/SDXC 
adapters, both were Sabrent.
  The first purchased adapter had intermittent connection problems in 
the desktop devices' USB2/USB3/USB C ports(tried all 8 of them, same 
issue). Contacted Sabrent, they provided(without charge) a replacement, 
didn't want the initial returned. The replacement has worked fine since.

A while back, I tried the older adapter on my laptop and Surface tablet 
- same intermittent issue of both devices with one exception. If I plug 
the adapter into the laptop USB-C port(using a usb 3 to C cable) it 
works fine.  The replacement adapter works without issue on the laptop 
and tablet.
  - likewise, the Samsung sdxc cards without the Sabrent adapter works 
when inserted into the the media card reader slot on all devices.


-- 
...w¡ñ§±¤ñ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2651

Andrews wrote on Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:15:03 -0000 (UTC) :

> Another question I have is that I've chosen those 8 (actually 9) characters
> because every sd card seems to come with that kind of a volume label (e.g.,
> BF3A-D4C2); but I wonder if I can format it to one character?
> 
> I guess I'll try that since I doubt anyone knows if a volume label of a
> single character will work on Android - so I'll run that test separately on
> the remaining sd cards as I've already copied over 0001 data to this one.
> 
> Would formatting a micro-sd volume label to just "SD" for example, work?

I tested it on the remaining sdcard and it works just fine to set the
volume label to a single character instead of the 4-dash-4 characters that
are typical.

I popped the single-character volume label into my Android and it "seems"
to have worked also, which would simplify the path as LOTS of programs
require you to type a filespec (such as Android webdav servers).

So now, instead of a filespec of /storage/0000-0001/0001/webdav", I can
type "/storage/1/0001/webdav", and to be consisistent, that can be
shortened to "/storage/1/1/webdav" where the first "1" is the card volume
label and the second "1" is a top-level directory designed to show up first
in the list (which is typically in alphabetical order).

Unfortunately, I have so many phones already set up as
/storage/0000-0001/0001 for the data storage, that I'm kind of stuck with
the longer convention.

But the good news is for those of you who are just starting to become
efficient, here are my recommendations for using Windows to make Android
smoother.

1. Format all your sdcards on Windows as exFat with a single-character 
   volume label - which can be the number "1" (or anything you like).

2. Create a top-level directory which shows up first in a sort
   (again, anything you like, but the number "1" shows up early on).

3. Then, forevermore, you can set apps to store data in that directory.
   "/storage/1/1/."

If you do this for EVERY sdcard, then ANY sdcard can be popped into another
phone, and everything will work because the phone thinks is the same card.

That's what I mean by "portable" storage (which I've been doing for years).

Given it's easier to manage Android from a Windows PC than from the phone,
in the end, the combination of Windows + Android makes both smoother.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2659

Andrews wrote on Wed, 23 Oct 2024 21:54:38 -0000 (UTC) :

> Those two simple things, I hope, will make this sd swap, uneventful.
> a. Format the sd card on Windows to "0000-0001"
> b. on Windows, create a top-level directory of "0001"
>    Note: The names don't matter as long as they're consistent.

UPDATE: 

It's November 1st, and if there was going to be a glitch in swapping out
the old 64GB sdcard (which had been in daily use on the Galaxy A32-5G since
April of 2021) for the new 128GB Lexar microSDXC UHS-1 sdcard.

Everything has been smooth. This shows that planning ahead, years before
you swap out the portable memory that doing two things on Windows works:

1. Format the sdcard on Windows to a known static volume name, and, 
2. Put *everything* you store on that card into a single top-level
directory (which of course can have as many subdirs as you see fit).

Let the Android operating system pollute every other top-level directory on
that sdcard - but Android won't touch your entire top-level hierarchy.

It doesn't get smoother than this.

A. On Windows, format the new sdcard (I did a low-level format)
B. Connect Android to the Windows PC via USB (or Wi-Fi) 
C. Copy over the one directory on the old sdcard to the new card

Then... 
a. Shut Android off & swap the old sdcard for the new sdcard
b. Boot Android and test the applications
c. Everything should work fine

Android has no idea that you swapped out the 64GB card with a 128 sdcard!
It just works.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2661

Andrews wrote on Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:26:03 -0000 (UTC) :

> 1. Format the sdcard on Windows to a known static volume name, and, 
> 2. Put *everything* you store on that card into a single top-level
> directory (which of course can have as many subdirs as you see fit).
> 
> Let the Android operating system pollute every other top-level directory on
> that sdcard - but Android won't touch your entire top-level hierarchy.
> 
> It doesn't get smoother than this.

BELOW IS SAGE ADVICE BORN OF THE WISDOM OF BEING OVER 80 YEARS OLD:

Given it was so smooth to think ahead by a few years to put everything you
cared about on Android, it should be the same when replacing a Windows HDD.

I've thought ahead by decades to the point I can wipe out almost all of
Windows and it wouldn't cause me more than a moment to recover from that.

At lest a decade ago I put everything I cared about on Windows into only
two top-level hierarchies, neither of which is a Windows default hierarchy.

That way, Windows never pollutes those two hierarchies:
 C:\data (this contains everything that I care about on Windows)
 C:\apps (this is simply the installed apps - which can be re-installed)

Notice even C:\apps isn't important because it's where I install software.
All software can be re-installed - so only C:\data matters. Nothing else.


 putting everything I care about in a single hierarchy, one question in the
quest for understanding operating systems is WHY those other folders exist?

On Windows I don't touch the garbage "C:\Program Files" directory.
Nothing I care about ever goes there on purpose.

On Windows I (almost) never touch the C:\Users directory either. 
Nothing I care about goes there on purpose (not even my menus).

Likewise, on Windows I "rarely" touch the "C:\Windows" hierarchy.

The result is I could (almost) wipe out my entire hard drive save for the
"C:\data" directory and I wouldn't lose anything that I cared about.

I could (almost) swap out the entire hard drive and just copy over C:\data
and it would be (almost) smooth - although there might be a few gotchas.

What's wonderful about thinking ahead with operating systems is that I
don't have to back up the entire hard drive. I just back up "C:\data".

Nothing else matters. Almost.

What would I lose if I lost everything but C:\data on a Windows HDD that I
could trivially easily recover from? I can always re-install my apps.

Note: I have a separate HDD containing the installers which uses the *same*
hierarchy as C:\apps (and C:\data\apps for appdata) which makes it smooth.

For example, thinking decades ahead, gVim is installed over here:
 C:\apps\editors\text\gvim 
Which means the gVim installers are archived in exactly the same way:
 I:\installers\editors\text\gvim 

Another example is Irfanview is installed the same well-organized way:
 C:\apps\editors\pic\irfanview
Which means the gVim installers are archived in the same structure:
 I:\installers\editors\pic\irfanview

Same with web browsers (and the same with all well-behaved addon programs):
 C:\apps\browsers\{firefox,epic,opera,brave,iron,seamonkey,etc}
 C:\installers\browsers\{firefox,epic,opera,brave,iron,seamonkey,etc}

Even the taskbar-pinned menus are NOT stored in the Windows hierarchies:
 C:\menus\editors\text\gvim 
 C:\menus\editors\pic\irfanview
 C:\menus\browsers\{firefox,epic,opera,brave,iron,seamonkey,etc}

Notice I could (almost) wipe out C:\Windows & C:\Program Files and C:\Users
and there would barely be a hiccup (almost) in recovering from that.

Every day I sleep well knowing I only need to back up C:\data and
everything I care about is safe because the rest is easy to restore.

To recover from a loss of the C:\ partition would (almost) be trivial.

My advice to others is to think ahead by a decade. 
a. Store everything you care about in one top-level hierarchy
   (that is NOT one of the Windows default directories!)
b. The reason is those default directories are polluted by the OS
c. Back up only that one directory and sleep well every day of your life!
-- 
I never use plurals in the most important directory names; but I show them
above in the key directory names simply for easier concept understanding.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.microsoft.windows

csiph-web